December 18, 2013

"I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes."

"You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."

"Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson talks about sin and logic. The line before the one quoted above is more graphic (and I didn't want to put it in the post title): "It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus."

I note the ambiguity in what Robertson says about logic and sin. At first, I thought he meant that when he thinks about anatomy, the vagina makes more sense as a place to put a penis, if one has undertaken the reasoning task of determining the most desirable orifice. But there's nothing logical about that. There are unexamined premises: 1. that the penis be inserted somewhere, and 2. that the place should be the most desirable place. Even assuming those 2 premises, there's the obvious problem of the subjectivity of what is desirable, and Robertson admits that by saying "to me" and "I'm just thinking." In this interpretation, the word "logical" is effectively jocose.

Then, I saw an alternate meaning: The prefatory clause "But hey, sin" gives meaning to the repeated phrase "It's not logical." Sin is not logical. What impels us toward sin and what constitutes sin? These are not matters for logic. Perhaps we could reason logically about what sin is, but Robertson's approach is to accept the traditional Christian beliefs and this faith is not acquired through logic. In this interpretation, there's no logic in defining sin, and, too, there's no logic in a person's feelings that draw him into doing things that fit that definition of sin.

Of course, Robertson is getting criticism for these remarks, which are called "anti-gay," but he's rejecting all of what is traditionally understood in the Christian religion as sin, including adultery and fornication. In the process, he talks about his own natural sexual orientation and seems perhaps to concede that it's easy for him to avoid one sin that he knows other people feel drawn toward. But overall, his effort is to call people into traditional religion and to save them from what he believes is sin. Myself, I support gay rights, but I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically).

175 comments:

Farmer said...

I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted

LOL.

SJ said...

If you want to discuss sin and logic, I suggest you look at Thomas Aquinas.

He brings several assumptions to the table, but he has a clear logical structure that uses those assumptions about human nature, morality, and behavior and builds them into a structure for discussing sin and behavior.

Per the Christian response to homosexuality: one very kind-hearted minister I know is a man who claims to have left the homosexual lifestyle under the power of Jesus.

He hasn't left all parts of the sexual attraction behind, but he has left the lifestyle behind. And he leads a minstry helping Christians who struggle with relationship and sexual problems (Heterosexual or homosexual).

Yet he and his organize recieve all sorts of hatred from gay-rights folks. Even though they are a ministry helping people who desire to receive help, and generally provide that help in a very kind manner.

I presume that this hatred is because the ministry calls into question the assertion that homosexual behavior is inbred and change is impossible.

harrogate said...

SJ,

Yeah, I rememmber when I "chose the heterosexual lifestyle"!! I bet you do too. What a glorious day that was, huh?

Jason said...

Robertson is getting criticism for these remarks, which are called "anti-gay," but he's rejecting all of what is traditionally understood in the Christian religion as sin, including adultery and fornication.

Ann. Put down the crack pipe.

Seriously.

Ann Althouse said...

Who is most likely to use logic to decide what sex to pursue?

I think it would be a person of homosexual orientation thinking about the pros and cons and opting for a sexually unsatisfying marriage to a person of the opposite sex to raise a family and to gain acceptance in conventional society.

And I'm not saying that to encourage the logical approach. In fact, I think that would itself be doing a great wrong to the other person, unless she (or he) were fully informed and chose this kind of relationship.

Paddy O said...

I remember when I "chose the heterosexual lifestyle"

When you had sex for the first time? Well, that's not really a lifestyle.

Maybe it's when you decided to have sex regularly with a woman or a selection of women?

YoungHegelian said...

I think what Robertson was thinking about as he said those words was Romans 7:23

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

In the schema of Platonic morality, to know the good is to be able to do the good. Not for St. Paul. For Paul, one can know the good, and still be unable to do it. In that way, sin is not "logical". Sin wars against reason.

Michael said...

Nice post, Professor. Appreciate a consideration of what he had to say, a thoughtful consideration, versus a knee jerk reaction based on the triumvirate of wrongness that generally brings smug sneers: southern, redneck, Christian.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harrogate said...

"Maybe it's when you decided to have sex regularly with a woman or a selection of women?"

Yes. Who among us can forget sitting down, perhaps with a journal in hand and sipping their beverage, meditating on this choice, weighing the pros and cons, consulting religious texts and all the important blogs. And then that moment when the decision is made! Oh the sense of free will and decisiveness that attends it!

I reminds me of the first time I decided to be attracted to women in the first place. Thank God I made that choice or else my life would have been a lot more sinful.

My favorite episode of "Happy Days" in fact was when Mr. C advised Richie on whether to choose heterosexual attraction and---far more differently, of course--the heterosexual lifestyle.

Renee said...


He needs to an advice column for Cosmo, that magazine always tells women to everything except have conjugal sex.

jacksonjay said...


Logic:

Vagina - sex organ
Anus - poop organ

Renee said...

Does the origins of the term lifestyle, come from a religious context or the gay community?

gspencer said...

A second to Michael's 11:05am post.

To G_d, we're all sinners deserving of, though not welcoming, what's due to us. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

I've got my sins. No, it's not one of homosexuality. But to G_d, sin is sin, and I too stand condemned but for the Reason for the Christmas Season.

Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

@harrowgate,

The idea that gays are "born that way" is an invention of the day before yesterday, and its scientific basis is still weak.

In the course of my lifetime there are have been major gay advocates who thought the gay life was a matter of choice. Do you think Jill Johnson thought that a Lesbian Nation would be built by people who were "born that way"? The founders of the Mattachine Society thought it was a matter of choice.

So, really what the gay rights movement wants is not "Listen to the voices of gay people", it's really "listen to the voices of gays with approved ideological views". As if that's an unusual state of affairs in the history of the Left.....

Bill Crawford said...

"In the process, he talks about his own natural sexual orientation and seems perhaps to concede that it's easy for him to avoid one sin that he knows other people feel drawn toward."

I recall reading that CS Lewis said the only sins he was not tempted to commit were pederasty and gambling.

Renee said...

jacksonjay,

The muscle structure is very different.

rehajm said...

So Phil's branching out from attracting ducks to attracting haters?

Robertson made Terry Bradshaw ride the bench! He could really throw the football, but he won't be casting the first stone.

damikesc said...

Phil Robertson is a solid guy and somebody I wish more people would behave like. He changed his life completely when he found God; didn't play the game of doing something he didn't love at the expense of something he did (he turned down the NFL because it'd interfere with his hunting passion and founded the Duck Commander company).

He is a proud family man who adores his family even if he regularly ribs his children for marrying and spawning "yuppies", but he is the most self-sufficient guy I've ever seen and he treats his wife like an absolute queen by all accounts.

He is a very devout Christian. He isn't "hating" on anybody.

traditionalguy said...

The Christian point of view is that after regeneration (a/k/a being born again instantaneously by hearing and believing the word or Gospel preached,) we are hen able to know the presence of God (the Holy Spirit) with us when temptation to sin arrives. At such times it is not just us and Satan arguing, there is also a third person present called the Holy Spirit who strengthens us within and also reasons with us.

The Spirit of Truth is a good user of reason because He advocates based on true facts.

I suspect the Duck Dynasty guys are believers. The Dick Dynasty guys not so much.

madAsHell said...

Logical? I think it's a poor choice of words.

I prefer to focus on the "she's got more to offer". She can make babies from batter, and they look a lot like me.

Titus said...

I have noticed that sometimes it's the gay men and not the lezzies that tend to be the issue.

Bumping beaves tends to not be an issue but what about munching carpets?

SJ said...

@Bill Crawford,

that line is in C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy, after he spends part of a chapter detailing that the English boarding school he attended was home to lots of older boys who had sexual relationships with other, younger boys at the school.

Lewis asserts that they older boys would have had girls if they could have, and that he doesn't say much about that sin because it is one that has never tempted him.

@harrogate:
this is why I used the phrase "lifestyle".

I have come into contact with many references to situations like that. Men (or boys) who interact sexually with other men simply because women are unavailable.

I think the supporters of gay-rights use the phrase "gay lifestyle" or "homosexual lifestyle". I know that I use phrases like "sinful lifestyle" about many other things in my own life, whether sexually-driven or not. The lifestyle is not the temptation.

And as others in this thread have mentioned, the propaganda of the homosexual-rights activists switched from "choice" to "born that way" within living memory.

Sexuality is a strange thing; my own experience is that the urges come before the response is chosen. Often, the response is chosen due to subconscious factors that are hard to tease out.

Kind of like temptations to hatred, violence, theft, or idolatrous worship of nature instead of nature's Creator.

The Apostle Paul wrote about this in his letter, about sin in general. It is rationally known to be wrong, but temptation is still often followed.

harrogate said...

YH,

I know there are those examples who argue they have made a choice. Yet, it's more than a safe wager to suggest that the vast majority would say they are attracted to members of their own sex.

I certainly had no say in terms of which sex attracted me. Did you?

That being said, even if it WAS the case that homosexuals were going against their "inbred" attractions to members of the opposite sex, and "defying logic" to pursue same-sex sex, I wouldn't see this as anything to be bothered by at all. I am hardly one of those whose support of gay rights depends on the workings of genetic code.

Titus said...

What about oral?

harrogate said...

Titus:

What about it?

traditionalguy said...

After I read Drudge and read the actual article, it is apparent that Fr. Duck is a Christian with an orthodox theology. Few have said it better. His old man in a beard even looks like Greek Orthodox and Coptic Fathers do.

Jason said...

This crap about whether an inclination to homosexual lifestyle is a decision or is inbred from birth is silly. What on earth does that have to do with whether it's a sin or not?

I'm sure I have an innate attraction to the opposite sex, congruent with the mammalian instinct to reproduce. That doesn't mean I get to schtup anything I want that happens to sport a poon. I am obligated, as a child of God, to control that instinct. It becomes sinful when it gets out of control and it ruins my life.

I have a human attraction to food. It gives nutrition and life. It tastes good. It's pleasurable. The desire for food is innate. I never made a conscious decision to want to eat. That was in my nature from the moment of creation. And yet gluttony is still a sin.

I mean, there HAS to be some natural desire to want to do things that are sinful, or there would be no temptation to overcome. Everyone has their own challenges. We all have our own thorns in our side. And they're TEMPTING! If temptation weren't tempting, then Christ's example of becoming flesh and walking among us and defeating temptation conquering sin would have no meaning.

It's as if Satan would have attempted to tempt Christ using not dominion over the entire world and everything in it, but with, say, last year's fruitcake.

Jesus: "Uh, no thanks. Really, dude… you are the greatest of the fallen angels and ruler of the Underworld. Is that the best you can do?"

Satan: "Well, THAT didn't work out too well, huh?"



Unknown said...

Jason: Ann. Put down the crack pipe.

Seriously.


Which part are you saying is so blatantly obviously incorrect, that "what is traditionally understood in the Christian religion as sin, including adultery and fornication" is accurate, or that that's what Phil Robertson is saying? If the former, you need to acquaint yourself better with Christianity. If the latter, you need to acquaint yourself better with Phil Robertson.

Andy Freeman said...

> I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically).

The means produce the ends.

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

As Reynolds puts it, "The thing with lefties is that for most of them, tribal loyalty trumps any principle. This is why even vague expressions of unease must be prefaced with statements demonstrating that, first and foremost, one still belongs to the herd."

Thorley Winston said...

I agree with damikesc. Phil Robertson’s also very candid about the mistakes he made early on and how it was a struggle to find his faith.

Ficta said...

This makes me think of Stephen Fry (a gay man) describing his very limited experience of heterosexual copulation:

"It was a perfectly satisfactory experience. It was not as I had imagined from that horribly misogynistic scene in Ken Russell’s The Music Lovers which seemed to suggest that because Tchaikovsky was attracted to men he must also have vomited at the touch of women. I could not, afterwards, deny that the design features of the vagina, so far as texture and enclosing elasticity were concerned, seemed absolutely made for the job – ideally suited in fact. We remained friends and tried it again once or twice, in a field and in a car. My heart was never in it, but my loins were very grateful indeed for the outing and the exercise."

From Moab is My Washpot available, I feel sure, through the Althouse Amazon portal.

jacksonjay said...


Renee sez:

The muscle structure is very different.

Just curious. What does a lifetime of anal sex do to the anus? Can't be good! Is that logical?

eddie willers said...

In the early 90's I worked with a born again. (for the record, I am agnostic)

In the news was the death of Jeffrey Dahmer and I said something along the lines of "a certain type of Hell", etc. and that led to a discussion of sin.

He told me that to God there was no difference what the sin was. I remember his example to this day (as I had never given it much thought before)

He said, "I could walk over to the counter, pick up a pair of scissors and slice your tie in half. That would be a sin and would be no different than Dahmer's".

I can't argue with his belief and at least I can understand it.

So Ann....you are right in your opinion of what Robertson meant. We are ALL sinners.

He will be excoriated, of course, but it will be, ahem, water off a duck's back.

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe the gay rights movement should call for Robertson to "take the Pepsi Challenge", so to speak.

Anthony said...

I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional Christian religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically).

Fixed that, if not for you, then for the rest of the intolerant Left who never seem to go after traditional religionists of any other religions. . .

Lifestyle <> attraction. The latter is innate; the former is a choice. Just because you're attracted to prepubescent children doesn't mean you're obligated to pursue such a lifestyle or expect huzzahs for doing so.

Jason said...

To unknown…

Hmm. We seem to be looking at the same sentence and reaching precisely the opposite conclusions about Althouse's intended meaning.

I had taken Althouse to mean that Robertson was rejecting the notion that adultery and fornication were sins, along with homosexual conduct. I thought Althouse was asserting that Robertson was rejecting Christian orthodoxy.

Reading it now, though, It looks like my reading was mistaken… So I withdraw the comment upthread with my apologies to the Prof.

SJ said...

@harrogate,

my experience with the testimony of the formerly-homosexual man came
when I sought help dealing with other sin problems, and relationship troubles.

I've discovered that sexual attraction doesn't start as a choice made, but it can be informed by choices.

Like @Jason said about food, attraction to women, etc. The desire isn't a choice, but the response is.

On a separate topic entirely:

The question of whether something is sin is a different question than whether society ought to try to use Law to stamp it out.

But Law is usually an effort to stamp out something that someone calls sin, or a moral failing.

Murder, drunk driving (and the associated negligent-homicide-by-vehicle), drug use, insider trading, money-laundering, abortion, sexual abuse, child-porn laws, 1st-Amendment protection for Hustler...

each of these discussions is a discussion about what sin is, and how society ought to use Law to respond.

Are you tolerant enough to allow people who disagree with you about sexual nature and sin to have their 1st Amendment rights to free speech?

Anthony said...

I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional Christian religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically).

Fixed that, if not for you, then for the rest of the intolerant Left who never seem to go after traditional religionists of any other religions. . .

Lifestyle <> attraction. The latter is innate; the former is a choice. Just because you're attracted to prepubescent children doesn't mean you're obligated to pursue such a lifestyle or expect huzzahs for doing so.

Will Cate said...

A sin is simply that which separates you from God. (Isaiah)

Smilin' Jack said...

"Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson

LOL. Anyone who answers to that description needs to just STFU.

Paddy O said...

"Who among us can forget sitting down, perhaps with a journal in hand and sipping their beverage, meditating on this choice, weighing the pros and cons, consulting religious texts and all the important blogs. And then that moment when the decision is made! Oh the sense of free will and decisiveness that attends it!"

That's pretty much how it is if you're a logical, thoughtful, maybe even religious person.

Paulio said...

It's interesting that here and elsewhere all the focus is on the gay comments. Is that the "drudge effect"? In the same interview he said that he thought blacks were better off and happier under Jim Crow. That should lose him the show...

William said...

I think the way you act out your heterosexuality is more important than the simple fact of heterosexuality. Perhaps the same should be true of homosexuality. I've no objection to gay marriage and that is perhaps the most honorable (and safest) way of being a homosexual.......That said, you will never convince me that the human anus is one of the garden spots of the human body. Besides Buchanan, can you name me one 19th century American President who engaged in anal intercourse? We should, perhaps, be instructed in ths matter by our founding fathers.

Smilin' Jack said...

"I'm just thinking."

"If you don't think too good, don't think too much"--Ted Williams.

victoria said...

Really, people listen to him? That's like taking relationship advice from Kim Kardashian, or political advice from Alec Baldwin.



Vicki from Pasadena

PB Reader said...

Logic:

If homosexuality is genetic, then why haven't the genes responsible been eliminated from the gene pool by natural selection?

Sure, they may have stayed in the closet over the years, married and had kids, but now that the social barriers are being eliminated and more are free to be themselves, won't natural selection work even more ruthlessly?

Regardless of whether it's a gene, epi-mark, or something else biological, something occurring in such small portions of the population, particularly one that can't naturally reproduce, would seem to be on the fast track to extinction.

Renee said...

"What does a lifetime of anal sex do to the anus?"

I can tell you what I lifetime of conjugal sex and birth does?

Renee said...

"Maybe the gay rights movement should call for Robertson to "take the Pepsi Challenge", so to speak."

Don't most people who come out as gay, at least to try to date the opposite sex?

Jason said...

Why? We have other severe hereditary diseases, and yet they haven't naturally selected themselves into extinction.

Renee said...

""What does a lifetime of anal sex do to the anus?""

Ask Cosmo

I can't believe I looked that up.

Thorley Winston said...

It's interesting that here and elsewhere all the focus is on the gay comments. Is that the "drudge effect"? In the same interview he said that he thought blacks were better off and happier under Jim Crow. That should lose him the show...

Actually here’s what Phil Robertson said:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

So basically Robertson thinks that people who try to live in a godly way are generally happier than people who expect entitlements and welfare. Somehow I doubt that kind of comment will cause A&E to cancel a show that drew in over 11 million viewers last week.

Jason said...

So Robertson is saying exactly what Pope Francis has been saying all along, but Robertson is a vile bigot spreading lies whose show should be taken off the air, and Pope Francis is The Advocate's Man of the Year.

YoungHegelian said...

In the same interview he said that he thought blacks were better off and happier under Jim Crow.

Better off? No. Happier? Probably not. A lot fewer of them dead each year by each at the hands of their fellow blacks (or whites, for that matter). Definitely.

While it may not be nice to say so, folks, including blacks, slept with their doors unlocked in Bull Connor's Birmingham.

Renee said...

In case you don't want to click the link...

"Michaels says that part of the anal appeal comes down to one thing: power. Having the upper hand can be super hot, especially for men who aren't particularly domineering in their day-to-day lives."

So in Christian teaching, we teach that sex is a mutual expression of love and openess to love the children coming from the expression.

In Cosmo.... men like to dominate without the risk of pregnancy and they don't care where they put it.

Is all anal sex about power even between two men?

eric said...

I don't know if Harogate is remaining obtuse or not, but Jason pretty much explained it.

Perhaps the earlier use of the word "lifestyle" threw him for a loop.

A sinful hetrosexual lifestyle is one in which sex is engaged in outside of the confines of marriage. Going to the bar, picking up a girl, taking her home and having sex with her. This is sinful behavior and is very much a choice.

Being attracted to women is not a choice. Hell, if who we are attracted to is a choice, wouldn't we all choose to only ever be attracted to our spouses? Imagine the problems that would solve!

No. The sin is in the choosing. Straight and gay alike choose to have intercourse. No one forces us to act upon our attractions.

Christians battle with their sinful desires.

Society encourages us to indulge in them.

YoungHegelian said...

@Thorley,

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers.

The treatment of blacks varied across the Jim Crow South varied greatly by state, by county, sometimes even by town. Robertson may have actually grown up in a parish where there may have been some measure of comity. Or at least somewhere where the bite of poverty hurt worse than the bite of racism.

I have quite a few recordings of early zydeco (20s & 30s). One weird thing about some of the songs is that you can't tell by the accent if the performer is black or white, which is really rare for southern music. They all seem to speak with the same Cajun accent. That seems to point to a high degree of social interaction between La. whites & blacks for the time.

AJ Lynch said...

A&E will have to cancel his show after the purple lobby gets done with him.

jacksonjay said...


Renee:

I clicked over. I was really more interested in the physiological effect of the act. The sources I read suggested that it isn't harmful, long term, but offered several precautions. Lube, condom, go slow and no cross-pollinating were the most common precautions.

Yeah it is a power thing for men, pitchers and catchers.

Jason said...

I was really more interested in the physiological effect of the act

Sure you were.

I read Penthouse for the articles, too.

Thorley Winston said...

BTW fans of the show probably already know this but the fact that the family doesn’t make a big deal of it is one reason a lot of us love the show.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Blogger Farmer said...

I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted

LOL.


Looks like you might be bigoted against religionists. So your 'LOL' is unintentionally self condemning.

And that deserves a real LOL.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Yet another discussion where someone ought to have brought up the existence of bisexuals, and no one has. Despite the "B" in "LGBT," I get the impression that most gay folk don't believe anyone actually lives between the poles of the Kinsey scale. Lesbians who've slept with men, gay men who've slept with women -- not bi, just deceiving themselves. All of them.

Enh, the sheer arrogance of thinking you know better what's going on in someone's head than does the person whose brain is in there. (Neurologists get a pass, but everyone else ought to shut up.)

harrogate said...

"While it may not be nice to say so, folks, including blacks, slept with their doors unlocked in Bull Connor's Birmingham."


How much that had to do with Jim Crow laws or with Bull Connor and his ilk can be deduced by subtracting zero from zero.

Jason said...

Race relations have long been different in Louisiana than they were in other parts of the deep South. For example, Louisiana commissioned black officers for the Confederate Army during the Civil War - and rather early on, in fact. something the North sure as shit didn't do.

Louisiana - and the area right around New Orleans in particular, was much more of a melting pot than the surrounding states.

Renee said...

How to Reduce the STD Risks of Anal Penetration

"Unprotected anal sex, regardless of whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples, is considered the riskiest activity for sexually transmitted diseases because of the physical design of the anus: It is narrow, it does not self-lubricate, and the skin is more fragile and likely to tear, allowing STDs such as HIV and hepatitis easy passage into the bloodstream."

In comparison a vagina is stronger, self-lubricating, and stretches wide enough to deliver an 8 pound baby.

Andy Freeman said...

>> "While it may not be nice to say so, folks, including blacks, slept with their doors unlocked in Bull Connor's Birmingham."

>How much that had to do with Jim Crow laws or with Bull Connor and his ilk can be deduced by subtracting zero from zero.

That lack of crime probably wasn't caused by the Democrat and progressive Jim Crow laws, but long-time national Democrat presidential delegate Bull Connor probably had something to do with it. Back then, Dems cared about crime. Now they care about thought crime.

Of course, one thing hasn't changed is that Dems like using govt to punish their political opponents.

harrogate said...

SJ wrote:

"Are you tolerant enough to allow people who disagree with you about sexual nature and sin to have their 1st Amendment rights to free speech?"

Well, sure. As soon as Phil the Duck runs afoul of the law for saying his views about homosexual sex, I will criticize the law for thus pursuing him. Yet I doubt that he will need a "Lawrence v. Texas" to keep him from the long arm of the law, somehow.

And for Eric,

I don't know if he is being deliberately obtuse or not but I made it pretty clear that my *main* contention is *not* that same-sex attraction occurs outside of the idea of "choice" (though I made that point because amazingly, many still don't seem to grasp that simple fact even though it obviously stands to reason, as many [including Eric] have ceded in their brilliant disquisitions on what it means to resist sin).

My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex. It is a dumb thing to get worked up about and condemn in the first place. The idea that there is something to get all bothered about there, is rapidly on its way out, and I suspect that commenters here know this to be true. Mr. Duck knows it too, however much he may not get the "logic" of it.

I wrote:

"I am hardly one of those whose support of gay rights depends on the workings of genetic code."

And that is indeed what I meant.


Archie said...

Gentlemen: a vagina or a man's anus? You decide.

Renee said...

"My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex."

But it isn't the same as sex (coitus) penis/vaginal intercourse, it has different repercussions and have to be treated very differently from each other.

We are bound by law to treat these acts as the same in regards to relationships, with no differences.

It isn't good vs. bad. Rather it is objective obligations that arise from reproductive acts. For it to be considered reproductive, you need male and female. It's different.

Nothing 'wrong' with difference. What is wrong is that you are reducing my vagina to a male's rectum.

Babies come out of my vagina, sort of a big differences.




damikesc said...

LOL. Anyone who answers to that description needs to just STFU.

He could care less about the show or celebrity.

Again, he turned down the NFL (Terry Bradshaw was his backup in college) because he liked hunting more.

He turned down Barbara Walters because he liked hunting more.

He's openly expressed issues with the show he's on and how he feels they edit out their faith too much for his liking.

Phil Robertson is many things --- fame whore isn't one of them.

Really, people listen to him? That's like taking relationship advice from Kim Kardashian, or political advice from Alec Baldwin.

I'll bite: Outside of things I mentioned here, what do you know about Phil Robertson?

My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex. It is a dumb thing to get worked up about and condemn in the first place. The idea that there is something to get all bothered about there, is rapidly on its way out, and I suspect that commenters here know this to be true. Mr. Duck knows it too, however much he may not get the "logic" of it.

He said it was sinful, which it is if one believes that sex outside of marriage is sinful, which Phil has expressed. It's a completely valid and, sadly underappreciated, view.

jacksonjay said...


Hey Jason,

My pooper is a one-way street! Not judging or nothing!

Jason said...

My, what a carefully-crafted denial!

TMink said...

"My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex."

You are entitled to your opinion, this is America. The God of the Bible says differently and a lot of us accept that. We are entitled to our opinion as well.

Aren't we?

Trey

Larry Nelson said...

Ann Althouse said:
Who is most likely to use logic to decide what sex to pursue?

Uh, how about a lesbian couple putting their son through hormone therapy before he reaches puberty?

Julius Reincarnate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julius Reincarnate said...

"Gay rights", Althouse? How did we get there? This is a dude spouting off his very hairy beliefs, with not a political word. This is American culture, God bless us... an American TV personality being personally exhibitionist. Can't we please have a line in the sand between Duck Dynasty and whether the government ought to do this or ought to that? Or does everything have to come back 'round to the government now... as if some call is sounded out and we are all tricked into driving ourselves closer to the the men with guns...

Frankly, I think Mr. Robertson clarified this quite well in his follow-up statement:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

...and thus he shows how completely government-obsessed us Americans are.

Achilles said...

How many topics can more readily be summed up in entirety by the acronym TMI?

Anyone who tries to involve the government in any form in sex or marriage as a means of forcing behavior is a tyrant. With everything going on in the world this as a topic is so completely irrelevant in the public sphere anyway.

harrogate said...

"We are entitled to our opinion as well.

Aren't we?"

Sure. Opine away.

Julius Reincarnate said...

I'd really like to know Chumlee's opinion... and Tinkle's too... because that'll help us all determine whether the conservatives or liberals are correct on this issue.

Ugh.

Julius Reincarnate said...

Oh wait, I mean "Tickle". Sorry for my misstatement... this is important serious stuff, ya' know!

Birches said...

I understood what he meant perfectly. Sin is not logical, but it is still sin.

And I agree, there's is nothing inherently evil about anal sex. If you're going to look at vaginal sex and (especially) foreplay with an objective mind, it too is a little messy and somewhat weird.

But so is masturbating to a bunch of pictures. Or hooking up with someone after a night of sweaty dancing at a club (ewww--why would anyone do that?--not fresh). If you can leave the situation, it looks downright silly and illogical.

Renee said...

"Anyone who tries to involve the government in any form in sex or marriage as a means of forcing behavior is a tyrant. "

But we will still need to have Paternity Court

jacksonjay said...


Hey Jason,

Thanks!

donald said...

Sam Kinnison kinda dabbled in these waters.

If you know what I mean.

Sam L. said...

"...I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically)." Effective, though dishonest. When did honesty count for much in fighting those evil religionists?

rhhardin said...

but I do not like the simple portrayal of traditional religionists as mean or bigoted (even though I do understand that it may be the most effective way to defeat them politically).

Avoid the parentheses.

It's a cop-out second voice.

JackOfClubs said...

"this faith is not acquired through logic"

Nothing is "acquired" through logic. Logic is a way of organizing what you already know (or believe) to be true. It cannot provide new information. If you know that Socrates is a man and that all men are mortal, logic will tell you that Socrates is mortal. But you have to acquire the premises through some other means than logic.

rhhardin said...

Nobody does sloth anymore.

Rusty said...

victoria said...
Really, people listen to him? That's like taking relationship advice from Kim Kardashian, or political advice from Alec Baldwin.



Or Vicki from Pasadena

Freeman Hunt said...

If this is to be an actual news item, shouldn't a Venn diagram of people who watch that show and people who find that statement offensive show some overlap? If not, it's a story of dueling choirs.

Achilles said...

Renee said...
"Anyone who tries to involve the government in any form in sex or marriage as a means of forcing behavior is a tyrant. "

But we will still need to have Paternity Court

12/18/13, 2:56 PM

Because that works out so well.

All of the interactions between government and individual in these situations is someone deciding what is "fair" which is why it has failed so miserably in the half dozen or so situations I am personally aware of.

Now the government has decided that if a man gets a woman pregnant he is financially responsible for her for the rest of her life because it is "fair." A women can get an abortion if she wants to, but the man has no choice in whether or not he is going to offer financial support.

Inexplicably this is leading to women acting irresponsibly.

I know two guys who were told she was on the pill and another who bailed after he tested the condom she gave him and found it to be less than effective(he noticed the hole.)

Things worked much better before all of this garbage and young people who were stupid were forced to take responsibility for their actions. A dad with a shotgun is a better alternative to what we have now.

cubanbob said...

Maybe I'm the odd one but who watches these so-called reality shows nevermind care what views and opinions they have?

traditionalguy said...

I havd resisted watching Duck Dynasty, because approving the b redneck persona needs to be avoided in my social circle.

But kids just love it. It appears to be a cool glass of authentic water to viewers dying of thirst for some reality.

Jason said...

Or hooking up with someone after a night of sweaty dancing at a club (ewww--why would anyone do that?--not fresh)

I guess you had to be there.

mccullough said...

I wonder what Blake Carrington thought of homosexuality

pm317 said...

After hearing about this show, I stumbled on it in the last couple of weeks and love watching it. There is some silly, slapstick stuff with the uncle and the sons but the patriarch Phil is an impressive guy -- highly intelligent and even wise. So I would go along with your alternate interpretation of what he said that sin is not logical.

rhhardin said...

The iron laws of logic will outlast the universe, Lautreamont said somewhere.

Arithmetic! Algebra! Geometry! Grand trinity! Luminous triangle! He who has not known you is a dolt! He deserves the test of the greatest tortures, for in his ignorant thoughtlessness there is blind contempt. But he who knows and appreciates you wants naught else of the world's chattels; is content with your magical ecstasies; and, borne on your sombre wings, desires nothing more than to rise in gentle flight, describing an ascendant helix, toward the spherical vault of the heavens. Earth shows him only illusions and moral phantasmagorias, but you, O concise mathematics, by the rigorous series of your tenacious propositions and the constancy of your iron laws, dazzle the eyes, shining forth a powerful reflection of that supreme truth whose imprint is discernible in the order of the universe.

Maldoror

Archie said...

Homosexual folks want to talk about everything but the reality of what their sexual practices are and how those unnatural uses of natural organs put the lie to their claims of normal and equal by their very actions.

hombre said...

"You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."

How thoughtful of Phil to insert a colon after a spoken word to permit the Professor's "alternate meaning," "sin is not logical."

Another possibility: For a committed Christian like Phil it may seem illogical for someone to commit to a life of sinful behavior.

Aside from the usual attempt by the GLAAD statement to redefine Christianity consistent with some gay model, the accusation that Phil "lied" was interesting.
What was the lie? The anal intercourse bit or the "sin" part?

And "a majority of Louisianans support" same sex marriage. Really?

These attacks on anyone who openly disagrees with the gay lifestyle and gay activist propaganda are getting as old as the "racist" bullshit directed against critics of the Obama Administration.

eric said...

"My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex. It is a dumb thing to get worked up about and condemn in the first place. The idea that there is something to get all bothered about there, is rapidly on its way out, and I suspect that commenters here know this to be true. Mr. Duck knows it too, however much he may not get the "logic" of it.
"

Obviously Phil and I disagree with you. Thus the discussion here.

We can argue whether or not it's wrong, give our opinion, and try to persuade. Or we can just declare it's wrong, or it's not wrong, and wash our hands of it.

Seems like one of those is lazy.

rehajm said...

dueling choirs

Now I'd watch THAT show!!!

damikesc said...

Tradguy, you're missing out. It is an exceedingly pleasant show about a family that is very close and are happy being rednecks. I grew up with people like that and most are cool to be around.

Bob Ellison said...

Is it just me, or are there more trolls around here lately? Especially with weird names.

It's OK if so, though;
It's OK if so.
Just keep goin' on.
It's OK if so.

n.n said...

Tolerance, not normalization.

There is no legitimate argument to promote homosexual behavior. Fortunately, sexual education has failed to displace biology; and progressive morality is still a fringe dogma.

As for "bigot", that is defined as a sanctimonious hypocrite. It does not apply to decent people who both appreciate the terms and circumstances of reality and demonstrate reasonable tolerance of deviations.

Eamon Kelly said...

And just what are 'gay rights' Ann? Who amongst the people of this land should be labeled so as to have bequeathed upon them certain rights others do not? Natural law does not permit coerced inequity without agreement from other people, many of whom to not agree with you or your wanting to beat people politically because they disagree with you.

hombre said...

harrogate wrote: 'My main point is that there is nothing "wrong" with same-sex sex.'

Depends, I guess, on whether you define "wrong" in accordance with God's commandments or the decrees of moral relativism.

If the latter, it would be more accurate to say: "There is nothing wrong with same-sex sex this week (or month, or year)."

harrogate said...

Eric,

When you put it that way, it strikes me that probably the best outcome would indeed be for you to say it is wrong, me to say there's nothing wrong with it, and then both of us go on from there. Nothing lazy about that at all, in truth. Why people are still arguing about this stuff is both unsurprising on the one hand, and totally perplexing on the other.

In truth I do not care whether you fuck men or women. That's the proper attitude to take.

Scott said...

Shit, I'm a gay man, so I gotta weigh in on this.

But I really don't want to. The world is full of people who live within the glass walls of their own little hot houses. So you have the opinion of Phil Robertson, a man who is clever and kind in his own way but not terribly tolerant of things he doesn't understand or is not familiar with. So how does that make him different from 80% of his fellow Americans?

Phil Robertson, media icon. Meh. The show's plotline has to do with how backwoods and comically unsophisticated these guys are; and he's definitely in character. People in the rural South should be offended when the Robertsons reinforce stereotypes of Southerners as being yokels and rubes. Beverly Hillbillies redux.

So here we have another dope saying ignorant things about gay men. It's not worth the effort of being offended. He's not the first of his type. His brethren are everywhere. As a card-carrying homersexual, I remain massively, passionately indifferent to the man.

Lord Ben said...

Nothing makes me want to clam up on the libertarian beliefs of mine like seeing religion punished for disagreeing with "mainstream" thoughts.

Quit attacking Christians like this and a LOT of them simply don't care beyond protecting their own free exercise of religion.

My one and only holdup on full support remains those stupid laws that don't let a florist pick and choose customers if some offend them or threaten to have me branded a hater because of my religion.

Rusty said...

s a card-carrying homersexual, I remain massively, passionately indifferent to the man.

As a card carrying none-of-your= damn-business, I'm massively and passionately indifferent to your opinion.
Tolerance does not necessarily mean acceptance.
Just sayin'

hombre said...

Scott wrote: " People in the rural South should be offended when the Robertsons reinforce stereotypes of Southerners as being yokels and rubes. Beverly Hillbillies redux.

So here we have another dope saying ignorant things about gay men.... He's not the first of his type...."

What, only "yokels and rubes and dopes" share his opinions? Maybe not.

And maybe your name calling reinforces the stereotype of gay men as aggressive nasties.

I am curious about the "ignorant" part. Was he uninformed about the anal sex? Was he uninformed about the sin involved? How about his personal preferences?

Maybe it's more informed/intelligent to endorse men having sex with men despite the fact that the CDC reports that small group is responsible for a majority of the new HIV-AIDS cases each year. Maybe not.

Jason said...

So you have the opinion of Phil Robertson, a man who is clever and kind in his own way but not terribly tolerant of things he doesn't understand or is not familiar with.

Bullshit, bigot.

He understands these things perfectly well.

The show's plotline has to do with how backwoods and comically unsophisticated these guys are; and he's definitely in character.

Pure f***ing garbage on your part. There is nothing 'unsophisticated' about what Robertson said here. He actually nailed Christian doctrine on the head, in all its nuances.

Pull your head out of your ass and confront your own biases. He's way, way ahead of you.



openidname said...

@Jason "Poon" is a mass noun, not a count noun. Like "nookie."

pm317 said...

Well, he is fired.

Jane said...

Aaaand ... he's off the air.

The new gestapo.

No Christians allowed. Speak up, lose your job.

Bob Boyd said...

Wow, yeah, suspended....expressed a preference for the wrong orifice, he did.
If he'd have said the anus is the logical choice, he'd be a hero of the liberals and beloved of anus aficianados everywhere.
I've never seen the show, but I hate ducks, so anyone who makes a device designed to lure ducks to a violent death with false promises of companionship is OK by me

Terry said...

Another victim of the gay bullying culture.
The old liberal motto "Speak your mind, brother!"
The new liberal motto: "Shut the fuck up, retard!"

AJ Lynch said...

I predicted in my 1:10PM comment the gay lobby would get him.

pm317 said...

In the articles I saw last few days on this show, they said he was talking about leaving the show. I don't think he was all that invested in this show. He may be saying good riddance but he may not like being 'fired'.

Phil 3:14 said...

"It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus."

Not just any vagina, your wife's vagina.

Michael said...

Well, at least we learned that the male anus, properly aroused, produces the lubrication necessary for logic. We did learn that didn't we?

Lord Ben said...

Gay Pride = acceptable
Straight Pride = crushed by the gaystopo.

virgil xenophon said...

People should check out the Yahoo home-page website as well as the Hollywood Reporter website. The commentary at both places is almost 100% pro-Robertson and VERY anti A&E. The "likes" at both places on most of the comments are running into the 50-90s even at this early stage..

The only logical reason why a network would suspend the star of its major money-producing show when the nation is nominally at least 70% Christian and with the LGBT crowd comprising only 1,7% of the total population is that the network programming depts are overwhelmingly populated by gays, lesbians and activist feministas.

eric said...

It never ceases to amaze me how powerful the homosexual lobby is in the United States, when they are so few.

I hope the family refuses to film without Phil and that they move the show to another station.

How about TheBlaze?

Oso Negro said...

And so the supporters of homosexuals show themselves to be mean and bigoted.

El Pollo Raylan said...

I don't know much about this man Phil Robertson and his show but it sounds like the network did to him what they did to Paula Deen (without the butter). I hope he lands on his feet somewhere else and I wish him well.

El Pollo Raylan said...

eric said...
It never ceases to amaze me how powerful the homosexual lobby is in the United States, when they are so few.

Follow the money back to Hollywood.

EMD said...

. As a card-carrying homersexual, I remain massively, passionately indifferent to the man.

Doh!

William said...

I just read his comments at the Drudge linked piece. They don't seem particularly hateful or, for that matter, controversial. An evolutionist can only believe that the vagina offers to the penis far superior rest and recreation facilities than the anus. Only a Darwin denier would say otherwise......the controversy seems ginned up. Does anyone besides me have the vague feeling that the Duck elder will be reinstated and that ratings will go through te roof.

Titus said...

It probably didn't help him that 1/2 the "A&E" senior execs and the other staff are likely major fags.

Titus said...

It would be kind of like a fag working at chick whatever grouping chrisians in with terrorists.

I read a large part of the ratings from DD is from elites from the coasts watching it to laugh at them.

somefeller said...

Yeah, the Robertsons are grizzled country men, who would never present themselves in some effete preppy manner. Totally authentic men of the soil.

Anyway, none of this should be surprising, particularly the self-serving and trivializing comments about the plight of blacks in the pre-civil rights era South that were also in the interview. I don't expect much good to come from people like that, so I'm not surprised when not much good comes from people like that.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Scott wrote: People in the rural South should be offended when the Robertsons reinforce stereotypes of Southerners as being yokels and rubes. Beverly Hillbillies redux.

It's hard to believe you didn't see the brilliance of Paul Henning's show which equally mocked Hollywood types. It was a clever juxtaposition.

Have you ever actually watched "The Beverly Hillbillies"?

Renee said...

My daughter did a homework assignment on viruses. She did Hepatitis A., so we went to the CDC website on behavioral risks on getting the virus. One was men having sexual contact with men.

If Duck Dynasty is bigoted, so is the CDC.

When is GLAAD going to go after the CDC.

This is really sad.

YoungHegelian said...

@somefeller,

....particularly the self-serving and trivializing comments about the plight of blacks in the pre-civil rights era South that were also in the interview.

Cuz, you wuz there with them in that cotton field, hoein' away in the hot sun with the white trash & darkies, and you know how it really went down. Right?

heyboom said...

So you have the opinion of Phil Robertson, a man who is clever and kind in his own way but not terribly tolerant of things he doesn't understand or is not familiar with.

And then you went ahead and showed that you were not terribly tolerant of him, his show or his lifestyle, i.e, things you don't understand or are familiar with. For the gay/liberal community, tolerance is a one way street and self examination is non-existent.

David said...

Scott said...

Phil Robertson, media icon. Meh. The show's plotline has to do with how backwoods and comically unsophisticated these guys are; and he's definitely in character. People in the rural South should be offended when the Robertsons reinforce stereotypes of Southerners as being yokels and rubes. Beverly Hillbillies redux.

It's parody, Scott. The parody starts with the Robertsons, who are not rubes or yokels, playing such in the show. And they are making fun of "sophisticates" much more than rubes and yokes.

I puzzle about why this goofy show is so popular. I think it's because there is a gentleness to the whole thing. The humor isn't meant to wound. By and large it can't wound because the people have such thick skins about most stuff. They are comfortable with themselves, kind to each other. That's a nice thing to watch for an hour or two.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Renee wrote:
My daughter did a homework assignment on viruses.

No doubt that statement alone would offhand many anti-child sophisticats. "How dare you reproduce and hold it up to us to scold us with" they will think. "How dare you vilify viruses" is also their thinking.

FullMoon said...

Now, what would be real interesting is if his family refuses to continue without him. Would challange A&E to not only lose its biggest show, but also face boycott from people sick of being bombarded with gay issues.
Personally, I think these guys are already risking over exposure.

Renee said...

She learned what fecal matter is.

'Poop, honey. It's poop.'

heyboom said...

@Fullmoon

I was thinking the same thing. They should do it, because they certainly don't need the money.

AlanKH said...

"Nobody does sloth anymore."

We're too lazy for it.

Jim S. said...

Robertson's approach is to accept the traditional Christian beliefs and this faith is not acquired through logic.

I argued myself into Christianity. I was trying to refute it to set my conscience at ease, but logic didn't let me go where I wanted.

FullMoon said...

I read that the 2014 season is already "in the can".Ha ha. I almost sympathize with whomever has to make that decision.

To broadcast. or not to broadcast, that Is the question

And another thingSome homosexuals are definitely born that way.Due to my limited vocabulary I liken it to a birth defect( no malice intended)

AlanKH said...

Where is the evidence of Robertson's intolerance? He (like maybe about half of Western civilization) thinks homosexuality is messed up in the head. So what? Everybody is messed up in the head to some degree, and everyone knows it. There's just no consensus on what all qualifies as messed-up-in-the-headedness. But humans are still able to get along - by rooting human worth in something other than sanity. (For Christians, it's that humans are the property of God, and we shouldn't hate His property.)

Real American said...

if you don't like what this guys says don't watch his show. If you agree watch it. or don't. All the guy did was provide his opinion. The leftards again react in their typical fascistic way following their authoritarian commandment: thou shalt not speak words with which I disagree.

What a bunch of fucking crybabies. Grow up, losers!

JSF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JSF said...

Once upon a time the Left, the Democrats, and many of their coalition stood for Free Speech,"

Nowadays, not so much.

It's easy to defend your Tribe when someone says something wrong, but it shows consistency and honor if you defend when someone says something you don't like. (Unlike somefeller and harrogate, they need their Emmanuel Goldsteins on the Right)

I never watched the show, nor do I support what he said. I voted No on 8 when it came out, but when did the Left start acting INGSOC on speech?

Now, the last Democrat who supported free speech:

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.


That was FDR in 1941!

Broomhandle said...

Ever walk through a Wal-mart? DD isn't just a TV show, it's a merchandising phenomonom that must be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm guessing Robertson and his family will come out of this richer and more successful in very short order.

rhhardin said...

Pay more attention to plaids and less to comments, is my advice for gays.

Scott said...

I love it when people declare how tolerant they are and then in the same breath tell me to shut up.

You prove the point I was making perfectly. I'm not disgusted with Phil Robertson. I'm disgusted with you.

Michael said...

Scott. Saying you are wrong is not the same as telling you to shut up. You are not being suppressed. Or oppressed.

Inga said...

Broccoli Scott, why EVER would you think you would find any level of acceptance from these people when push comes to shove? Palladian used to seek the same acceptance from the folks here and was also routinely disappointed.

Scott said...

Inga, I'm not looking for acceptance. I'm looking for integrity among the faux "constitutionalists" who wipe their butts with the First Amendment. Particularly one commenter who, in a thread about a straight man talking about gay sex, didn't want to hear the opinion of a gay man. This thread absolutely pegs the self-parody meter for the social conservatives.

Terry said...

You don't want people to hear your opinion, Scott, you want them to agree with you.

Crimso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
iowan2 said...

Scott I have read the entire thread. No one told you to shut up. Just pointed out how inconsistent you are.
Your condescension toward all the people you perceive to be 'rednecks', the stereo typing of a whole swath of people, and your terrible reading comprehension skills. Robertson said he accepts all sinners, because he is a sinner. That no sins ore lesser than other sins. That sin is choice. Disagree with his core values. But do not pretend for a moment that somehow your intolerance is somehow a superior moral position of Robertson's position of acceptance and tolerance of ALL sinners.
Did you note at the end of the GQ interview he was heading back home to work with a cocaine addict (a choice of sin? or is addiction a disease? Phil doesn't care, he is giving of his own time to accept the sinner and help)How much of your own time do you offer to people that are sinning?

Phils message is the same as a lot of Christians. Examine with an open mind. Do not judge the person.

Scot you have judge Phil Robertson, he on the other hand would listen to you with an open mind and accept you, regardless your sin.

Crimso said...

"I hope he lands on his feet somewhere else and I wish him well."

The really interesting thing about all of this is that he was on his feet to begin with. They were already wealthy before the show. Many commenters seem to think he was a victim of PC. I think A&E was the real victim here, and am immensely enjoying seeing them put in an impossible position: "Hmmm. What do we do? Ignore the pro-gay people calling for his head and alienate them, or give him the axe and watch a hugely (historically, in fact) successful cash cow go buh bye."

I strongly suspect that A&E will lose money over this, and perhaps a LOT of it. Piss-poor way to do business, but they were put in an impossible situation when the principles of gay rights (making them no money)were pitted against the principles of a Christian (making them a lot more money).

WAIT! I just realized it wasn't the principles of gay rights, but instead the feelings. He wasn't calling for gays to be banned, he just hurt their feelings. That makes it a collossally stupid move on A&E's part. They thew principles under the bus (along with a lot of profits, which being a business they should really care about) to spare feelings.

As someone who believes gays should have the same rights as anyone else, and who is not a Christian (nor of any other religion), I'm going to have to side with Phil on this one and say "Well played, sir." He knew he had A&E's nuts in a vise, and he tightened it up good.

***Previous posting of this deleted to replace "through" with "threw." I didn't want to perpetuate the redneck Southern stereotype.

Jason said...

Scott: I love it when people declare how tolerant they are and then in the same breath tell me to shut up.

The unwitting irony of this last comment from Scott slips right by him like crap through a goose.



Jason said...

Essentially, management just pissed away its fiduciary duty to shareholders to satisfy their own private feelings for gays and mollify the GLAAD types. If I'm on the Board of Directors for that company, I'd have the CEO's head on a pike.

If I were a shareholder, I'd be thinking hard about a fiduciary breach lawsuit.

Rusty said...

Scott said...
Inga, I'm not looking for acceptance. I'm looking for integrity among the faux "constitutionalists" who wipe their butts with the First Amendment. Particularly one commenter who, in a thread about a straight man talking about gay sex, didn't want to hear the opinion of a gay man. This thread absolutely pegs the self-parody meter for the social conservatives.

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I never said you shouldn't voice your opinion. What I did say, once you made your sexual preference public,is I don't give a shit.
I know that you want everyone to care that Scott is gay, but I don't care if Scott is gay. Obviously it means enough to you to tell everyone your gay. So instead of just being Scott, you are now GayScott. A bigoted fag.
You see. The mistake everyone is making is thinking that just because someone ha a TV show what the say means something. It doesn't.

virgil xenophon said...

@Jason/

This is a classic example of the exception to Graham T. Allison's (Of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government) decision-making theory formulation expressed in his book The Cuban Missile Crisis of : "Where you stand depends on where you sit." In this case ideology trumped both reality (>70% of Americans are nominally Christian) and their fiduciary responsibilities. There is a lesson here for all those who believe that our intertwined financial and trade dealings with Communist China means that they would never go to war with America because it would not be logical from a financial standpoint because of the negative consequences for China's economy.

Jason said...

I hope we never go to war with China. The problem with fighting the Chinese is that half an hour after you kill one of them, you feel violent again!

SGT Ted said...

So you have the opinion of Phil Robertson, a man who is clever and kind in his own way but not terribly tolerant of things he doesn't understand or is not familiar with.

What Phil is demonstrating is the definition of tolerance.

Phil said "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."

The problem is that you have forgotten, or are purposefully distorting what the word means to confuse it with "celebratory acceptance."

virgil xenophon said...

SGT Ted is dead on tgt here. "Celebratory Acceptance" is not only exactly what the LGBT crowd is demanding, it is their minimum demand. If one reads much of the more deranged academic literature one will find that nothing less than a societal acknowledgement of the SUPERIORITY of the LGBT lifestyle over the "hetero-normal" one will do..

Doug said...

Why wouldn't the A&E Network just put out one of those disclaimers like they have on the DVDs: "The thoughts and opinions of the Robertson family members are their own and do not reflect the values of Arts & Entertainment Channel, its owners or management." Could it be that the powers at A&E are filled with hate and intolerance?

iowan2 said...

There is a truth in this.

To understand the terror that rose up in the gay community, first you must try to understand Phil.

As an aid, try to understand what goes on in 12 step programs. Finding freedom from addiction by accepting a power greater than yourself. That is where Phil comes from. He is wildly successful after finding a power greater than himself, he found that in Christ. Not all do, but he did. Phil's wild success in his mind is not money, it is his personal freedom from addiction and the wealth of family and friends. His acceptance of a higher power is the driving force in his life.

Now also understand that around the tables of those 12 step programs, is often repeated, 'if you want what the others at the table have (freedom from addiction) you just do what those people do.'

This message is anathema to the message of gays, in this case.

Gays cant find peace and serenity, Phil has peace and serenity. Gays cant do what he does, so they cant have what he has.

Duck Dynasty has not changed their message, Phil has not changed since the first showed aired. His boys have not evolved. The remain unchanged.

All of this as struck terror in the gay community and must be stamped out.

Except more powerful people have been trying to stamp out spirituality for a long time and have never gotten close.

MayBee said...

I'm baffled as to why he had to be destroyed for these remarks.

I'm guessing every straight man believes a woman has more to offer sexually than a man.

Inga said...

"Gays can't find peace and serenity..."

Why would anyone come to such a conclusion? Why would they not be able to find peace and serenity as well as anyone else?

Scott said...

(So much mouth foam in this thread. Somebody get a mop.)

Inga said...

Mouth foam? Santorum.

I Callahan said...

So much mouth foam in this thread. Somebody get a mop

A number of people have challenged you with comments that were not "foamy". You've not addressed any of them.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Inga said...
Mouth foam? Santorum.

My mother had a saying: "Oop slop, get the mop."